186
9 Networked Minds
beginning, later on, when other idealists or conditional cooperators join, it is the
crucial success principle that makes it possible to avoid or overcome “tragedies of
the commons”.
The consideration of one’s externalities on others evolves eventually, because the
resulting system behavior is superior to one that ignores externalities. In fact, in an
increasingly interdependent globalized world, problems caused by us tend to return
to us like a boomerang. This applies, for example, to financial crises and wars, which
affect us indirectly through the deterioration of public infrastructures, international
migration, reduced security, etc.
9.10 “Networked Minds” Require a “New Economic
Thinking”
An important lesson from the evolution of friendlier, “other-regarding” people is
that such individuals consider the payoff and success of others when choosing their
actions. As a consequence, their decisions become interdependent. While conventional statistical methods focusing on independent, unrelated events may sometimes suffice to characterize the decisions of “homo economicus”, we usually need
complexity science to understand the interdependent decision-making of “homo
socialis”. In fact, “homo socialis” may be best described by the term “networked
minds”.
Note that, in congruence with the findings of social psychology, “homo socialis”
has the ability to put him/herself into the shoes of others. By taking the perspective, interests, and success of others into account, “networked minds” consider the
externalities of their decisions. That is, “homo socialis” decides differently from
“homo economicus”. While the latter would never cooperate in a social dilemma
situation, “homo socialis” is conditionally cooperative. Thus, he/she tends to cooperate if just enough neighbors do so as well. Putting it differently, “homo socialis”
is able to harmonize competitive individual interests to make them more compatible
with systemic efficiency. In the end, everyone can be better off. Being friendly to
each other benefits everyone. The social world is not a zero sum game where one
can only get more if others get less. On the contrary: in social dilemma situations
or when creating collective goods, everyone can get more, if everyone behaves in an
other-regarding and cooperative way.
This means that “homo socialis” is more successful than “homo economicus”,
even if we measure success purely in terms of individual payoff. While the invisible hand often doesn’t work for “homo economicus” (as market failures show),
it works for “homo socialis” because he/she interacts with like-minded individuals
who consider the externalities of their decisions. Therefore, “homo socialis” creates
systemic benefits while increasing his/her personal payoff, in contrast to “homo
economicus”.
9 Networked Minds
beginning, later on, when other idealists or conditional cooperators join, it is the
crucial success principle that makes it possible to avoid or overcome “tragedies of
the commons”.
The consideration of one’s externalities on others evolves eventually, because the
resulting system behavior is superior to one that ignores externalities. In fact, in an
increasingly interdependent globalized world, problems caused by us tend to return
to us like a boomerang. This applies, for example, to financial crises and wars, which
affect us indirectly through the deterioration of public infrastructures, international
migration, reduced security, etc.
9.10 “Networked Minds” Require a “New Economic
Thinking”
An important lesson from the evolution of friendlier, “other-regarding” people is
that such individuals consider the payoff and success of others when choosing their
actions. As a consequence, their decisions become interdependent. While conventional statistical methods focusing on independent, unrelated events may sometimes suffice to characterize the decisions of “homo economicus”, we usually need
complexity science to understand the interdependent decision-making of “homo
socialis”. In fact, “homo socialis” may be best described by the term “networked
minds”.
Note that, in congruence with the findings of social psychology, “homo socialis”
has the ability to put him/herself into the shoes of others. By taking the perspective, interests, and success of others into account, “networked minds” consider the
externalities of their decisions. That is, “homo socialis” decides differently from
“homo economicus”. While the latter would never cooperate in a social dilemma
situation, “homo socialis” is conditionally cooperative. Thus, he/she tends to cooperate if just enough neighbors do so as well. Putting it differently, “homo socialis”
is able to harmonize competitive individual interests to make them more compatible
with systemic efficiency. In the end, everyone can be better off. Being friendly to
each other benefits everyone. The social world is not a zero sum game where one
can only get more if others get less. On the contrary: in social dilemma situations
or when creating collective goods, everyone can get more, if everyone behaves in an
other-regarding and cooperative way.
This means that “homo socialis” is more successful than “homo economicus”,
even if we measure success purely in terms of individual payoff. While the invisible hand often doesn’t work for “homo economicus” (as market failures show),
it works for “homo socialis” because he/she interacts with like-minded individuals
who consider the externalities of their decisions. Therefore, “homo socialis” creates
systemic benefits while increasing his/her personal payoff, in contrast to “homo
economicus”.